A federal judge in San Diego has preliminarily approved a $400,000 class and Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA) settlement resolving claims that Walmart failed to give heat-recovery breaks to hourly workers at its El Centro superstore.

In this case plaintiff Mark Hendrickson has worked for Wal-Mart Associates, Inc. since 1997 and works both indoors and outdoors at the company’s El Centro store in Imperial County. The court’s order notes that El Centro has a hot desert climate, with temperatures regularly topping 80 degrees from March through October and average summer highs above 100 degrees.

Hendrickson alleged that Walmart did not provide the cool-down recovery periods required under California’s heat illness rules and did not pay the extra hour of premium pay owed under Labor Code § 226.7 when those periods were missed. Since a 2013 amendment, § 226.7 has expressly covered recovery periods mandated by Cal/OSHA regulations, such as the cool-down rests required by Title 8, § 3395, California’s outdoor heat illness standard. He also alleged inadequate shade, water, and air conditioning; inaccurate itemized wage statements under Labor Code § 226; a representative claim under PAGA (Labor Code § 2699); and an Unfair Competition Law claim under Business and Professions Code § 17200. Walmart denies the allegations and maintains that it complied with California law, and no court has found otherwise.

Hendrickson filed suit in San Diego County Superior Court on December 14, 2022. Walmart removed the case to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California in January 2023 under the Class Action Fairness Act, according to the court docket. After several rounds of pleading challenges, including a June 2023 order granting in part Walmart’s motion to dismiss the first amended complaint, the Fourth Amended Complaint became the operative pleading.

In November 2024, Judge Anthony J. Battaglia addressed Walmart’s motion to dismiss the UCL claim in a written order. Hendrickson sought UCL restitution only for the fourth year preceding the three-year Labor Code limitations period. Relying on Guzman v. Polaris Industries Inc. (9th Cir. 2022) 49 F.4th 1308, the court held that a shorter limitations period does not make a legal remedy inadequate. That meant the federal court lacked equitable jurisdiction over the UCL claim. Rather than dismiss it, the court severed the claim and sent it back to the superior court, reasoning that dismissal risked an endless loop of refiling and removal. The motion to dismiss was denied as moot.

After eight continuances, the court in a January 2026 order refused to push back the remaining deadlines to accommodate mediation. The parties settled at a full-day mediation on February 12, 2026, and jointly asked the court to conditionally certify a settlement class and preliminarily approve the agreement under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23.

In the case of Hendrickson v. Wal-Mart Associates, Inc., No. 23-cv-00110-AJB-BJW (October 2026), the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California granted the parties’ joint motion for preliminary approval of the class and PAGA settlement and conditionally certified a settlement class.

The settlement class covers roughly 1,082 hourly, non-exempt employees who worked at the El Centro store from June 19, 2018, through April 24, 2026, and who worked at least one shift on a day when the outdoor temperature hit 80 degrees or higher. A separate group of about 787 “PAGA Employees” covers non-exempt workers at the store from August 19, 2021, through April 24, 2026.

Of the $400,000 gross settlement, class counsel may seek up to $133,333.33 in fees (one-third) and up to $40,000 in costs. Up to $12,500 goes to the settlement administrator and up to $10,000 to Hendrickson as a service award. The PAGA allocation is $30,000, split 75 percent ($22,500) to the Labor and Workforce Development Agency and 25 percent ($7,500) to PAGA Employees. At least $174,166.67 remains for the class, distributed by qualifying workweeks. The parties estimate about $1.52 per workweek, which works out to an average of roughly $161 per class member. No claim form is required. Unclaimed funds go to the State Controller’s Unclaimed Property Fund rather than back to Walmart. The settlement includes no injunctive or workplace-practice changes.

Class members have 45 days after notice to opt out, object, or dispute their workweek count. PAGA Employees cannot opt out of the PAGA portion. Motions for final approval and fees are due January 21, 2027, and the final approval hearing is set for April 15, 2027.

Judge Battaglia did not approve everything outright. He flagged the $10,000 service award as potentially excessive next to awards of $2,000 to $7,500 approved in other cases in the district, and directed Hendrickson to document his time and explain whether the award affects his ability to judge the class recovery. The court was also concerned that fees and costs together would consume about 43 percent of the fund. It noted the presence of a “clear sailing” clause, under which Walmart agreed not to oppose the fee request, a feature the Ninth Circuit has said calls for heightened scrutiny under In re Bluetooth Headset Products Liability Litigation (9th Cir. 2011) 654 F.3d 935 and BriseÑo v. Henderson (9th Cir. 2021) 998 F.3d 1014. The court warned that it will closely review counsel’s billing records, rate support, and itemized costs before final approval.

For employers, the case is a reminder that heat-recovery premiums under § 226.7 can be pursued alongside wage-statement and PAGA claims, even at a single location. Since July 2024, California’s indoor heat standard, Title 8, § 3396, has also required cool-down rests in indoor workplaces at 82 degrees or above. That standard was adopted under Labor Code § 6720, which the settlement release also references, potentially widening exposure for retail and warehouse operations.

Walmart Settles Single Store Heat-Recovery/PAGA Case for $400K